Well what else do you expect the team to do? They've shown a track record of loyalty towards the two whipping boys for the fans. Just because we don't like one or both of them doesn't mean management doesn't. It isn't like we traded for these guys and their contracts came along with them. The management team signed these guys to these deals.

I expect the team to admit their mistake by actually trying to put players on the ice that will actually prevent goals from being scored. Move Jackman down the depth chart.

Quote:

At the time Jackman was signed to his contract he was playing as a #3-#4 guy and was compensated as such. When the top two guys went down the natrual progression of the depth chart took place and he slid into that role. Did he ask to play 25+ minutes a night? No. But he did it anyway. Now do I think he did a great job? Not really. I'd give him a B- or C+ as a #1 guy. That doesn't mean he's a f'ing throw away player. And he sure as hell wasn't bringing the team down with his play. What brought the team down was the lack of responsiblity exhumed by our #1 pick D-man. That and the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Brewer's injury.

In his contract year, Jackman played like a #5 defenseman. He played pretty well the previous two seasons, but he stunk in his contract year. He was bringing the team down with crappy play in his defensive zone. For goodness sakes, 8 of the 10 Vancouver goals in the playoffs (not counting the empty netter) were scored with Jackman on the ice. Brewer is actually as bad as Jackman if not worse. Brewer being healthy might have actually hurt us because he would have been playing on the top pairing instead of Polak. At least Polak could bail out Jackman from time to time.

Quote:

The fact remains if Jackman didn't step up and play those minutes, the team probably doesn't make the playoffs. He's no All-Star and probably shouldn't be making as much as he does. But I don't think he deserves the severe criticizim he receives on a constant basis.

How do you come up with that? Because the Blues media department told you so? Jackman's advanced statistics show that he was the equivalent of a minor league call-up last year (i.e. Strachan). The Blues would have made the playoffs with or without him. The biggest reason Jackman receives so much criticism is because Murray puts him out there all the time. Khalil Greene isn't going to get as much criticism on the DL as he would batting .200 and playing horrible defense on the Cards. The same thing applies here as well. The other reason he gets criticized is because his hefty contract is getting in the way of us acquiring a good defenseman.

McKee played his best hockey here down the stretch and in the playoffs here. For the little they are saving, I wooda just as soon keep him. Curious to see what he get's on the open market, keeping in mind that all teams musta passed on him for a bag of pucks at $4 mil/1yr. Hell, they prolly coulda sent the Blues a crappy 2 mil contract and everyone be better off.

I expect the team to admit their mistake by actually trying to put players on the ice that will actually prevent goals from being scored. Move Jackman down the depth chart.

This isn't NHL 09. You can't just swap out and make trades left and right to get the team you want out there. They were stuck with what they had. And quite honestly, there seems to be a fundamental difference between what you think is a good team and what they think is a good team. If they felt we were in such dire straits then a trade would have been made. But there was no need to trade young prospects to improve an injury-related situation. If we would have signed a bunch of guys to be our top defensemen and they flat out sucked, then that would have been a problem. But the problem was our top guys got hurt and others were called upon to step up and fill in.

JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:

How do you come up with that? Because the Blues media department told you so? Jackman's advanced statistics show that he was the equivalent of a minor league call-up last year (i.e. Strachan). The Blues would have made the playoffs with or without him. The biggest reason Jackman receives so much criticism is because Murray puts him out there all the time. Khalil Greene isn't going to get as much criticism on the DL as he would batting .200 and playing horrible defense on the Cards. The same thing applies here as well. The other reason he gets criticized is because his hefty contract is getting in the way of us acquiring a good defenseman.

No I came up with that by watching the games and understanding a guy stepping in to a tough situation and trying to make the best of it. You're telling me if we scratched Jackman every night, put Mike Weaver in his place and brought up another AHL guy we'd still have made the playoffs? I highly doubt that'd be the case. It seems that you glare more on mis-steps and refuse to acknowledge his other efforts including occupying the ice for as long as he did.

Look, the guy isn't my favorite player by any stretch of the imagination. I cursed his name the entire way out the building after Game 4 and I think he plays like a dumbass some times. But he is what he is and you need to accept it. I commend him for his effort and hope that he doesn't have to fill such a role again. Hell, if I recall, wasn't it reported that he had been injured since January and still played that many minutes every night? Regardless if that's fact or not, he still laced up and put out a better effort than some would have.

Adn what's this non-sense about acquiring a good defensemen? If management felt they needed a better guy, they probably would have tried to get someone. I think they were comfortable with what they had. Maybe they'll sign someone after Wednesday. Maybe they wont. But Jackman isn't getting in the way of another acquisition. If they felt he was in the way then they either a.)wouldn't have signed him to a new deal or b.) would have bought him out over McKee.

Well what else do you expect the team to do? They've shown a track record of loyalty towards the two whipping boys for the fans. Just because we don't like one or both of them doesn't mean management doesn't. It isn't like we traded for these guys and their contracts came along with them. The management team signed these guys to these deals.

At the time Jackman was signed to his contract he was playing as a #3-#4 guy and was compensated as such. When the top two guys went down the natrual progression of the depth chart took place and he slid into that role. Did he ask to play 25+ minutes a night? No. But he did it anyway. Now do I think he did a great job? Not really. I'd give him a B- or C+ as a #1 guy. That doesn't mean he's a f'ing throw away player. And he sure as hell wasn't bringing the team down with his play. What brought the team down was the lack of responsiblity exhumed by our #1 pick D-man. That and the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Brewer's injury.

The fact remains if Jackman didn't step up and play those minutes, the team probably doesn't make the playoffs. He's no All-Star and probably shouldn't be making as much as he does. But I don't think he deserves the severe criticizim he receives on a constant basis.

I don't want to debate this to death, but THIS.

Yeah Jackman didn't look great when he was injured and overexposed, but I can't believe people ignore what he brought to the table the season before last when the Blues went on their run and this past season before he was held together with taffy and had to play 25 minutes every game.

There really isn't anything to argue about, the point of the matter is that Murray should have never let a player with the skill level of Jackman play 25+ min while injured. He shouldn't be playing that many minutes period, let alone when he is injured.

What were they supposed to do late in season? Who was going to step in?

I don't understand the obssession with giving one player several more minutes then the other d-men. Why not spread that extra 5 min he was getting to Polak and Coliacovo and Weaver. Why not have the top 4 guys playing even minutes?

Well what else do you expect the team to do? They've shown a track record of loyalty towards the two whipping boys for the fans. Just because we don't like one or both of them doesn't mean management doesn't. It isn't like we traded for these guys and their contracts came along with them. The management team signed these guys to these deals.

At the time Jackman was signed to his contract he was playing as a #3-#4 guy and was compensated as such. When the top two guys went down the natrual progression of the depth chart took place and he slid into that role. Did he ask to play 25+ minutes a night? No. But he did it anyway. Now do I think he did a great job? Not really. I'd give him a B- or C+ as a #1 guy. That doesn't mean he's a f'ing throw away player. And he sure as hell wasn't bringing the team down with his play. What brought the team down was the lack of responsiblity exhumed by our #1 pick D-man. That and the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Brewer's injury.

The fact remains if Jackman didn't step up and play those minutes, the team probably doesn't make the playoffs. He's no All-Star and probably shouldn't be making as much as he does. But I don't think he deserves the severe criticizim he receives on a constant basis.

I don't want to debate this to death, but THIS.

Yeah Jackman didn't look great when he was injured and overexposed, but I can't believe people ignore what he brought to the table the season before last when the Blues went on their run and this past season before he was held together with taffy and had to play 25 minutes every game.

I'd rather they had bought out Brewer or Jackman, but this is a good step in dropping a lot of unnecessary salary.

None of the three played anything beyond "okay" for the majority of the season and the playoffs. Flashes of great play at best, and McKee was among them. He's not getting any younger; I'm not upset with this at all. And management has an hard-on for Brewer and Jackman irregardless of playing ability so is anyone actually shocked by this?

I expect the team to admit their mistake by actually trying to put players on the ice that will actually prevent goals from being scored. Move Jackman down the depth chart.

This isn't NHL 09. You can't just swap out and make trades left and right to get the team you want out there. They were stuck with what they had. And quite honestly, there seems to be a fundamental difference between what you think is a good team and what they think is a good team. If they felt we were in such dire straits then a trade would have been made. But there was no need to trade young prospects to improve an injury-related situation. If we would have signed a bunch of guys to be our top defensemen and they flat out sucked, then that would have been a problem. But the problem was our top guys got hurt and others were called upon to step up and fill in.

Where did I say anything about making trades and swapping out players? I was talking about not putting out Jackman against the other team's top line to be scored upon at will. Maybe it would have behooved us to try Weaver, McKee, or Colaiacovo in those spots. Our problem wasn't just injury related, it was poor defensive personnel decision related. If Brewer was counted on to be our top guy, then we had major problems to begin with.

Quote:

JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:

How do you come up with that? Because the Blues media department told you so? Jackman's advanced statistics show that he was the equivalent of a minor league call-up last year (i.e. Strachan). The Blues would have made the playoffs with or without him. The biggest reason Jackman receives so much criticism is because Murray puts him out there all the time. Khalil Greene isn't going to get as much criticism on the DL as he would batting .200 and playing horrible defense on the Cards. The same thing applies here as well. The other reason he gets criticized is because his hefty contract is getting in the way of us acquiring a good defenseman.

No I came up with that by watching the games and understanding a guy stepping in to a tough situation and trying to make the best of it. You're telling me if we scratched Jackman every night, put Mike Weaver in his place and brought up another AHL guy we'd still have made the playoffs? I highly doubt that'd be the case. It seems that you glare more on mis-steps and refuse to acknowledge his other efforts including occupying the ice for as long as he did.

I watched the same games as you and came to a different conclusion, one which the statistics backed up. I certainly think that we still would have made the playoffs if Weaver and Strachan were playing down the stretch. We didn't make the playoffs because of Jackman going -17 and allowing about 3 GA/60min TOI at even strength, so it stands to figure that losing him wouldn't have hurt much at all.

Timmo Seppa of the Puck Prospectus agreed on my take of Jackman as well:

"Regarding your buddy Jackman, we've got him at +0.0 offensive GVT, +1.5 defensive GVT, +1.5 total GVT. So he's not much more than AHL-level replacement fodder. And as you allude to -if you look at Gabe's site- he took 23 minors versus drawing 5 at even strength - That cost his team a couple of goals."

Quote:

Look, the guy isn't my favorite player by any stretch of the imagination. I cursed his name the entire way out the building after Game 4 and I think he plays like a dumbass some times. But he is what he is and you need to accept it. I commend him for his effort and hope that he doesn't have to fill such a role again. Hell, if I recall, wasn't it reported that he had been injured since January and still played that many minutes every night? Regardless if that's fact or not, he still laced up and put out a better effort than some would have.

Jackman got hurt against San Jose in March and only played hurt the last 15 games of the regular season. He was bad before the injury. And let's not use that as a total crutch. Jay McKee played through a significant knee injury that actually required surgery (Jackman's didn't) and was only one the ice for 1 goal against in the postseason. Sergei Gonchar tore his MCL as well and wasn't a pylon in the playoffs either. And who are you saying Jackman put out more effort than? Are you saying the rest of the team was dogging it?

Quote:

Adn what's this non-sense about acquiring a good defensemen? If management felt they needed a better guy, they probably would have tried to get someone. I think they were comfortable with what they had. Maybe they'll sign someone after Wednesday. Maybe they wont. But Jackman isn't getting in the way of another acquisition. If they felt he was in the way then they either a.)wouldn't have signed him to a new deal or b.) would have bought him out over McKee.

The non-sense is that you couldn't have afforded acquiring another good defenseman last season when you were stuck paying a bunch of money to Jackman, McKee and Brewer. There simply aren't enough dollars on defense to go around. Sure, they bought out McKee, but they still have to pay him 2/3 of his contract. The Blues simply cannot add a big contract (like Bouwmeester or Pronger) on defense without moving another big contract. That isn't an option with Brewer or Jackman. And I don't know why you trust this management making decisions on free agent defensemen. This is the same management that gave Brewer, McKee, and Kariya big contracts. Sure, they have a good drafting record, but not so much when it comes to valuing defensive free agents.

I cant say I'm sad to see McKee go, sure he blocks shots but we have Polak and Jackman who do that, can actually skate and are a lot more physical. We had way too many bodies on D coming into this year and someone had to go. Despite what people think, our defense will be the best this team has seen since Pronger and MacInnis left. Johnson has had all this time off to workout get stronger, a year to mature. Watching Pietrangelo in the OHL playoffs as captain beating out the Ottawa 67's then coming to Peoria, already having experience in the NHL, I expect him to be very solid if not one of our top 2 or 3 that leaves Polak who was voted our top D-man, Jackman who will excel as a 3/4 man, Colaiacovo who led our D in points and Our Captain EB. With the injury to Brewer I would still go out and sign another defenseman because there will always be injuries and if your fortunate enough to be completely healthy you play the 6 best. I would be excited if Zubov came here, he behind Lidstrom and Gonchar has been the best PP QB in the league before injuries came.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum